Nerdfighters are a group of unique, awesome, creative, and nerdy people. Nerdfighters spawned around brothers John and Hank Green and their series of video blogs. Four years later, the community is larger and stronger than ever.

Don't fret! Watch this video explaining some background information on the Greens, the vlogs, and a lot of Nerdfighteria's inside jokes. And, if you still have any questions, the folks over at Eff Yeah Nerdfighters have written up a great FAQ.

I want to talk about one of John's books, but don't want to spoil the novel for others!

That's very considerate of you! Luckily, we've got you covered. If you wish to talk about one of John's novels and believe what you are posting may be a spoiler, we'd appreciate it if you use our handy spoiler tags! (Note: this only works with comments and the body section of text posts.)

The Bugle (a brilliant satire podcast by John Oliver & Andy Zaltzman) has been supported by listener's contributions, a "voluntary subscription" since the end of 2011.

The podcast has been freely available without imposing pay-walls or limited frequency all thanks to a dedicated core audience paying what they deem acceptable for the weekly comedy "audio newspaper for a visual world."

It's the PBS telethon method all year-round, yet it's different:

You pay directly for content you want to support (instead of just hoping your show continues)

You're not prodded relentlessly to donate

The content doesn't get interrupted

This model can be applied to YouTube without messing up the current system.

The Brain Scoop can appear on YouTube as is, it can still have ads at the beginning and the end of the videos-- and the only new part:

Have an estimated total to support the program for 1 year, so when the goal is met, people can feel good about saving a show they like.

Try it for a few months and I bet you'll have a majority of funding within a few weeks. Throw in special prizes for randomly selected contributors to generate more interest. There's nothing to lose with this method.

I think the major snag here is that we underestimate how much the content costs to create. Sure Vlogbrothers would be relatively cheap. Even the Brainscoop wouldn't be THAT expensive, as I'm assuming a lot of the access they have is free/inexpensive.

Crash Course however... I remember reading somewhere that it costs thousands of dollars per MINUTE of content.

This is a brilliant idea, but it wouldn't work if every channel on youtube did it. It works on The Bugle and it may well work on Vlogbrothers, but Hank talks about trying to reform the nature of content-creation. As soon as a Youtuber has 10-20 different shows that they like asking for some money every now and then so that they can sustain themselves, either the whole payment system would fall apart (simply because the average viewer is not rich enough to pay for all the shows they like) or we'd reach the same problem with small channels struggling, because everybody's money is paying for the high-quality stuff already.

This is why I mentioned the Steam indie bundle sales somewhere on here. I know a lot of people watch the same cluster of channels as I do, and I'm pretty sure it's the same for most viewers... if you like one channel you're more likely to watch similar ones. So bundle the channels (say, 10 per bundle) and you can pay what you want for that bundle. The money gets distributed among those channels, and contributors get a little perk... maybe store discount if the channel sells stuff or something like that.

With Gittip (https://www.gittip.com/hankgreen/) we're planning to handle this with a "funds" feature where you'd make a "nerdfighters" fund with percentages for John, Hank, and whoever else. Everyone could make their own nerdfighters fund if they wanted and funds can be nested so one fund gives to another which gives to another, eventually ending in people, and then when you pour money in the top it filters out all pachinko-style.

Well with kickstarter there is a time limit, and if you don't meet your goal you don't keep the money. This sounds similar, but on going, and money donated goes to the project regardless of the goal being achieved.

Should you have to watch ads if you pay a subscription fee? The Bugle doesn't have ads but is still supported by 'volunto-subscription' as Andy would say. If the advertising is not sufficient to fund brain scoop let alone more ambitious channels like crashcourse with animation etc then it seems counter productive to give people the inconveniences of the old model but suggest they pay for it.

I suppose it is more of a transitional model for YouTube... perhaps the site could offer special options after a channel obtains a high amount of subscribers and regular views. Qualified channels could then enable a built-in system to recognize contributors and disable their ads? However, I don't see Google turning down the possibility of ad-money.

Yeah, it would be quite the uphill-climb for the "under 10,00 subscribers" channels. I doubt they'd be able to generate the same response Freddie Wong got with the Video Game High School Kickstarter, but it is an option worth attempting.

I want to add something to the ways of payment. John and Hank love the Netherlands, and we love them back, so it would be great if we could pay with iDeal. It's a way for Dutch debit card holders to pay with internet banking. Every large bank and webstore here works with it, even Steam added iDeal as a way of payment last year. Please do consider!

Ok this may be hard to put into words, but here we go. The problem is we don't want big corps getting in between content creator and content consumer. Such a set up allows for manipulation of the market, as we see with say, the music industry. There seems to be three ways of monetizing ones media online.

Advertising is the current model most often used, it works not because the advertisers pay large amounts of money for say a video but a tiny amount per view of the video. This adds up and also rewards quality content as the more people who watch the content the more the creator will earn. But as Hank has pointed out, this model is vulnerable to manipulation

The second is subscriptions, a system where a creator asks for a flat fee for access to the media that he or she is producing. This has very large problems with it. First it can only be done once a content creator has achieved a substantial pool of consumers, and worst of all, it limits the growth of the creators consumers as they have effectively cut off access to those that don't pay.

The final model is one that runs on donations, this is something common especially with Podcasts and software. The creator adds a donation button and when people appreciate the content they are being given, they help donate in order to keep the content creator making more content (Not to mention that some people like to say thank you).

Now here is the problem. Donations is by far the best way for both creator and consumer. But there is a very large problem with this when trying to use it with mass consumed media like Youtube content. When someone makes an hour long podcast every couple weeks, their donations will normally come from people who have been listening for some time. After listening to the creators podcasts for a year or so, the consumer will consider donating a lump sum of say $10-$20 as thanks for all the content they have been given.

But this set up cant work with things such as LOL CATS where one video is watched and then the consumer moves on. The consumer may consider that the content was worth something but not enough to warrant a transaction fee.

This is the problem, the exchange of money from one person to another often will incur a fee. If I wanted to give Hank 1 pence for his last video I couldn't. First there would be a charge for exchanging my pounds into dollars. And then finally a transaction so small will also incur a cost from many banks as a kind of handling fee.

This would mean that if you wanted to donate small change to content creators on Youtube you would notice that most of what you are giving is actually going to the banks.

Ok so I hope that explains the current situation clearly enough, now for a possible solution. Why not use Bitcoin? If all Youtubers had a Bitcoin donation button then people from anywhere in the world could donate money to the creator no matter how small an amount it might be. I could give Hank 0.5 pence for his last video without incurring a fee (although Bitcoin does have limits to how small a donation can be made to prevent a kind of DOS attack).

And you may think "1 pence?! WTF thats nothing! Hank can't live off that!" But it adds up in exactly the same way as the advertising model does. If people had an easy way of donating small change to content creators with great ease they would. It doesn't exist at all with the current fiat currencies but Bitcoin will allow this and making it possible.

Think about it, Last video got around 200,000 views, everyone gives 1p that's like £2,000 for one video! Ofc not everyone will donate every time they watch but you can see how it adds up to huge amounts if everyone pays up so even a small amount could add up to something nice.

Sigh I hope I haven't botched up my attempt to explain this, I really do see A) Bitcoin playing an important role in the future and B) Donations to be the way forward in financing media.

Bitcoin is really interesting how it crowdsources competition for the efficient processing of transactions. I just sent you 10 cents USD with bitcoin. That wouldn't even be economical with paypal because they take 30 cents from every transaction, but it is here because the fees are so low.

(The minimum tip for the /r/bitcointip bot on reddit is 10 cents to help avoid spam, but you can absolutely send 1 or 2 cents with Bitcoin)

People often think 'oh my 7 cents won't do anything' but there is a video I saw about a guy who asked for people to mail him pocket change, (pennies nickles dimes) to pay for college, and people all over the country sent him envelopes of pennies, and he paid full tuition from that. So something like that would really work. Especially in such small quantities.

Could it be done like a cross between the Steam indie bundle sales and kickstarter? You pay what you think/feel you can afford (down to nothing at all) but paying something gives you some sort of perk the next time around. Could be done monthly/quarterly/biannually.

Some months maybe I couldn't pay anything at all but I would still get the content, other months I really like one of the perks so I pay the average (I believe the indie bundle averages around $6?) I quite like this model as it is the developers that get the benefit, they get their name out there and some funding.

Also as far as paying what you want goes, that can also work - my IP law textbook this year was done like that and I know that me and my friend both paid the suggested amount so that the company could continue to put out books that way (it was digital download).

Perks could be almost anything.. Say discount from the DFTBA store, a free download of a song you really like, a shout-out or even (although this was already dismissed) some sort of bonus content. The indie bundle gives you a free extra game I think, if you pay the average.
Store discounts I think is a nice perk.. I would love to get some of the stuff but I can't afford most of it. With a discount I could, and they would get more money on top :)

hey, so how about trying some kind of micro-merchandising... you sell digital or physical perks for micro amounts... 25 cent images or sound file... 1 dollar sticker... it works in gaming because there are cool looking swords and other stuff. Maybe it would work for content...
I also think that we have to keep in mind, the area is so new, no one knows for sure which model is going to be right. There are a lot of ideas, and the ideas need to be experimented with in practice.

Micropayments really haven't worked. I think it's psychological "why would I pay for free content" and also "This creator won't care about my ten cents...my ten cents will never matter." Because if it doesn't feel like a substantial transaction is taking place, then it is as if no transaction took place.

I don't know though, I'm sure lots of people have thought about it more than me.

Yes that may be the crucial point. Even though by not directly paying the creator but rather just split up a certain amount of money through all the likes given in one month, this could be established quite easily.

The act of liking a video wouldn't be changed and the user can continue using youtube without thinking "do I want to give that video 10 cents or not".

Just my opinion, but buying a comic book from a news stand feels entirely different from having to pay to view a web comic, even though they are pretty much the same, because it's easier to hand over cash and you get a physical object. Is there any way we could simplify money flow, or maybe do some sort of token, like buttons for veteran viewers and contributors. Nerdfighter merit badges anyone?

This is why I think we need a platform and not just one-offs like The Bugle. We need a network effect where the more people that are on the platform, the more people are aware of it and expecting it and the more value there is for everyone. We need to make it a normal thing to reciprocate for all the free content we enjoy on the Internet and building a ground-up platform for that is the best long-term solution.

I founded Gittip to be such a platform, and Hank is already receiving $3.25 per week on the site:

I think they haven't worked yet because they've never been properly implemented. Take Twitch.tv for instance, that allows some partners to charge a few dollars to remove advertising from their videos and/or enable chat for that user. Even though Twitch takes a huge chunk of that payment (I seem to recall 50%,) many content creators are surviving almost exclusively off the model, even with viewing figures in the low ten-thousands.

I'd also have to say that if I was paying money (be it micropayments or not) to youtube it would be like when I give to charity; I don't know how much of my money will go to the person I want it to go to. I.E. The person who made the video.

Re: if you had to subscribe to YT ... many media subscription businesses use a model where the money paid to creators is based on their share of the total streams/views in a month. So creators with lots of viewers & activity can earn a lot, but for people who are less popular that usually means pennies... That's what musicians don't like about Spotify, for instance.

With Gittip the receiver gets the face value of your gift. You pay a little extra to cover the payment processing fees, but Gittip itself doesn't take a cut (Gittip is funded on Gittip just like content producers are).

I really want a micro-donation system integrated into YouTube. Currently a view is worth only a tiny fraction of a cent to a creator — assuming the viewer doesn't use ad-block. I, and I think many others, want to contribute more to help keep content creators creating content.

Merchandise is a good step in the right direction; though after printing/producing, handling fees, charge fees, shipping, tax and any local VAT, the content creator will be lucky to get a couple of dollars out of a ten dollar transaction. Micro-donations on the otherhand have much lower overheads (Flattr for instance only takes 10%), and thus the content creator gets a much better slice of the pie.

Plus not everybody can afford to contribute $10-25+ on merchandise, especially when you add $10+ shipping costs to anywhere outside the creators' nation; however using voluntary microdonations, that large userbase with a small amount of disposable income can contribute a few dollars to help keep their content being made, and those few dollars represent a several-thousandfold increased contribution compared to watching advertising—even a few cent is a several-hundredfold increase over ad revenue per viewer.

I really do think this is the future—for all content creation, not just YouTube. And it will be able to support content creators far better financially than the current advertising-driven model.

I agree with this completely. And one more plus I would like to add: This model allows people to support "units" of content, independent of the creator, which means that people with few followers can still benefit. So, the model doesn't depend on a creator having a big following, because his/her good units of content will still get around and be able to receive microdonations. (How many times have we all seen a great video, favorited it, and then moved on and never heard from that creator again? If that creator could get microdonations for that one good video, at least he's getting some funding, regardless of his/her subscription count.)

Even if a user donated 10p it would be more profitable for the content creator, as more people would do it. This would lead to higher value videos because the value of the video would determine the amount of donations.

This of course depends on how well users take to this model, but it's surely better than distracting ads.

Flattr has kind of high fees though. I think bitcoin is an open source solution designed partially for this. Yes it's value fluctuates and can be hard to figure out at first, but it's really frictionless once you figure it out. And transactions are processed by anyone who wants to turn on their computer and contribute to the network. This means that competition is blown wide open and the cost per transaction goes right down. (Not like paypal or credit card companies today)

I like this idea. Or (and possible along side it) you could have the suggested donations from youtube to the youtube channels you watch. It could tally up which channel you view, and how much of it you view, and if you view their ENTIRE video or just skim passed it etc etc... I mean they keep these analytics anyway. Anyway from there they can say "Okay you spent X amount of time watching Y channel so we suggest Z" and it'd be up to you to pay whatever you want.

Micropayments were what I was thinking, especially when Hank was talking about Brainscoop. Say an episode takes 4 people 8 hours to make, 32 man hours at $25/hr is 800 dollars. That means each of the 50,000 subscribers would have to pay 2 cents. That's less than an advertiser pays now for an advert. But that just pays for the content, we need youtube to watch it on....

The trouble with Flattr is that they took some venture capital money, so their hands are tied regarding their business model, and they have to take a 10% cut off the top like everyone else. Despite their Pirate Bay heritage (they share a co-founder), Flattr is mired in the old system. The way this plays out is that it's really hard to tell if anyone is actually making a living on Flattr, and the answer is basically no.

You should check out Gittip, which is kind of like Flattr but with a "new rules" business model. Gittip is funded on Gittip, meaning that I (the founder) am out on Gittip just like everyone else:

Crowd funding (I.e. Kickstarter, Indiegogo) is coming through as a way to get larger projects funded and projects with existing fantasies - either for the creator or the content - really thrive. 50,000 people subscribing to The Brain Scoop might not cut it on ads, but if everyone chipped in a dollar and received something small, something digital in return (wallpapers or personal thank-yous, for example. Or DFTBA vouchers, in Hank's position), it would be enough for a while, I would bet. And I'd also bet that people would be willing to donate more than $1.

I am a HUGE fan of crowdfunding, I've been using Kickstarter a lot and funding lots of projects and have seen more than a few podcasts and webshows do a "This is our funding for our 2013 season," or in the case of Crash Course they could do a "This is our funding for Crash Course: Latvian History" campaign.

I know a LOT of people who are heavily involved in the Kickstarter community/big supporters of crowdfunding projects who are ALSO in to Crash Course, but didn't (until recently, or at all) know about Hank and John's other stuff: those people, the teachers, etc, would probably be really willing to kick in a few bucks to help the project happen, especially if they were offered early downloads of videos (see: pre-production/unedited cuts) or dvd/bluray copies for use in classrooms without internet access.

I'm not sure personally how I feel about this model. Sometimes people release stuff earlier for paying members too, but I feel weird in general about having any content at all behind a paywall (for any amount of time). That then creates a divide in your community that's based on wealth as well as enthusiasm (also, access to credit cards, which lots of nerdfighters don't have.)

I belong to a community that has a special forum for paid members who support the site, and it certainly created a divide between those who had access (whether due to affluence or access to credit cards) and those who didn't. It changes the entire dynamic of the community.

I can see that being a problem, especially with a fanbase where (I assume) the majority are younger teenagers without the means to pay for things online or perhaps don't have the money. There'd be a huge age difference between those with premium content and those without, which would be even worse in a group that shouldn't be split into subsections at all.

Ok, so the models are 1 advertising 2 merchandise 3 subscription. You might not like the options, but unless someone reinvents capitalism, then there really are only ever three options. Advertising sucks because, well, the advertisers like to control content and drain attention away from the content. Merchandise works, but is expensive and risky because you have to produce a bunch of stuff along with the content which people will buy. Subscription is popular because it guarantees a revenue stream, but it is difficult because it makes your audience exclusive and your content isn't available to everyone.

I would really suggest that micro payments are an option too! Just choose a monthly budget and whatever you like gets one part of your budget. You don't have to pay for every video. Just hit the like button for every video you like (in that case want to support) and at the end of every month, your budget gets distributed over all the videos you liked.

It's easy and doesn't require you to pay for every video you want to watch.

Yes, but the problem is that not enough people are using it. I haven't heard any of the content creators I follow talk about it, yet I'm sure that if they used it, I would start paying through a service like that.
Maybe it's worth trying out for a while.

I like the micropayment idea, but not linking it to likes. I think that would diminish the amount of likes each video gets, and likes affect how likely a video is to be seen by more people. It affects searches, it affects people's likelihood of actually watching a video, and when people choose to share their activity, it actively spreads the video to new eyes and audiences.

On top of that, unless dislikes were eliminated or somehow balanced, it would mean that people could dislike a video all they want for free, but only people who could pay would be allowed to like a video. That sounds disastrous to me.

No that's not quite what I meant. A like would not be equal to a donation of a certain amount of money, just a percentage. Lets say you have given youtube a budget of 1$ a month. Now you can like one video which in return receives the 1$. But if you like, lets say 100 videos, your dollar gets evenly distributed throughout the likes. So essentially you don't have to care about how many videos you like.

And you could always set the budget for the month to 0$ so you could like videos without paying.

Okay, with that clarification, I'm more on board with your idea. Providing your budget could range from zero to anything, that could allow for people of all economic rungs to participate normally, and contribute as they're able (or when they're able, if income is unstable). Thanks for clearing that up! :)

I also love this idea, but as I suggested above, I think it should be a third party service so that we get to contribute to content other than videos. (Most of the video creators we watch put more content in other platforms as well.)

I agree with you, it shouldn't be linked to likes. I think it should be a third party service, because that way we can support other content. And that's important because the content creators we follow usually have more stuff they put out through other platforms.

Considering there are webseries that exist primarily on donations, and the Veronica Mars movie is currently funded at over three million dollars through donations, I'd say donations are more feasible than most people give the notion credit for.

That said,it's not a consistently reliable solution for all people, for the same reason a subscription service would lose a lot of the community: the people who appreciate the content don't always have money to give. However, people are more likely to give when they're given a choice, and made part of something larger than themselves through their choice to give. When you have a free thing, and then people are told they MUST pay (like monthly payments to see content), most people will either leave or pay very begrudgingly, becoming less a fan of the service/content in the process.

Interestingly, while ads are a feasible, predictable means of income, I always come around to thinking the advertisers are getting shafted. Ads want people to buy things, but as previously noted, many of the people they are advertising to don't have money to spend. Or the product simply doesn't interest them. It doesn't matter how many 5-Hour Energy ads I'm exposed to (and it's quite a lot...the majority of the ads I see on YouTube and Hulu over the years have been for that product), I'm never going to buy it (honestly, in part because the ads have driven me away).

I think it would be very possible. Assuming an average video view count of 125,000~ across the Crash Course channel (That I've roughly deduced from watching the viewer count), and assuming 1% of the viewers donate an average of a dollar each (That admittedly, I've guessed based off other internet donation drives), that's $1,250 an episode.

Obviously none of those figures are grounded in solid observation. But I do think it's a good model to start testing in video content creation, and Crash Course is in a fine place financially to test it.

Many "letsplay"ers have paypal accounts for donations that they use to fund the channel, and give perks like shout outs to those who contribute. It's not a beautiful solution, but it's one that's been working for those people (not to say they don't have ad revenue too).

I'm really into this idea. But to be clear, I'm not thinking about Vlogbrothers, which is doing fine and doesn't need extra support, but for smaller, community based projects, the donation perk thing is cool. Beer and Boardgames does it really well.

Have you guys heard of Flattr? It's an idea about "social microdonations" to collectively fund online projects. I don't know how popular it is and from what I gather, it wouldn't really work if not enough people know about it and use it. Still, I think that if/when it gets going, it might be a great solution.
I heard about it in the The Pirate Bay Away From Keyboard documentary, it's an idea by one of the guys from TPB, Peter Sunde.

I'd add that another plus of such a third party service is that it allows for people to contribute to units of content regardless of the creator's subscriber count. So if a creator has only a few videos that are very popular, he/she can still get contributions through those, regardless of how many actual subscribers he/she has. Also, such a service allows us to contribute to content beyond videos.
The reason why I like this model better than direct donations models is that it would allow me to allot a specific budget and then distribute that among the various things I watch/read/consume on the internet. If we only focus on direct donations, there are projects that I know I won't contribute to. So for example, as much as I'm a fan of all vlogbrothers related projects, I wouldn't donate directly to The Brain Scoop. I might donate directly to SciShow or CrashCourse, but that'd be it. I would, however, make microdonatiosn to specific Brain Scoop videos that I find interesting, and still be able to distribute the rest of my money among other projects I care about. I think it's important to remember than when talking about potential models to fund projects online, we have to keep in mind that people are more likely to want to donate to more than just one project/team of creators. Microdonations allow that.

I still don't like all the youtube studio's popping up. It's staring to feel that you have to sign with these studio's to be successful and we are losing independent creators or at least not being able to discover them as easily.

Exactly! I want to see what these studio's do for smaller creators as well as big one's because as a consumer its very unclear what these youtube studio's do to help foster talent instead of feed off of it.

I have been creeping on ziggyD videos, he does starcraft walkthrus and on a second channel talks about youtube success and jazz, pretty informative

One video he did was on a decision to join a studio, for him a gaming studio. There were some tangential benefits(get to know people, different networking, access to parent and affiliated studios). But the biggest benefit I saw was a regular flat monthly payout, keeping income consistent may be something helpful for youtubers earning just enough to scrape by or supplement income to scrape by, as well as higher production values if the network offers a studio to work in. (I don't know if either of these benefits work with every studio just relaying another side)

I still don't have a good feeling about studios myself, it feels like a middleman that popped up because there is money to be had...Time will tell I suppose.

As a small youtuber that has tried doing it with only Monetization and then joined the network, the biggest perks is that with Youtube monetization I sometimes got flags on my videos that essentially said "We're not sure if you own the content in this video, so you can't monetize it unless you show proof that you have written permission to use everything", which I didn't always have.

On a network, I never get that. That means that I can earn money from all my videos from the second I upload them.

Theoretically, they're supposed to bring publicity. They're supposed to market you, so that you get more views, so that both you and they can make more money. In practice, however, I'm not sure if that actually happens. Depends on the studio, maybe, because I know plenty of people who've joined up with bigger studios and seen no change whatsoever.

I think, right now, the smaller studios and networks are a bigger benefit to content creators than the large, well-known ones.

Hank, I'd like you to talk about the reasons why thebrainscoop can't fund itself. Is the ad revenue at all close to funding the show? and what are the costs that really add up with that kind of show (which, for the most part, doesn't seem to be that resource intensive)?

I'd assume that there's a fair amount of permissions spending from shooting at the university. Also, editing, people on camera, and just the time spent with camera, computer and editing software in hand all add up. Little things when piled together become big things.

Uggh this problem has been plaguing everyone for years. We're trying to attach a positive sum system (information) to a zero system (the physical world) without taking away the advantages of the positive sum (freely exchanging ideas allowing people to use them to make further content) or severing the content creation from the zero sum physical resources (like food, and cameras). Science has the same issues, and they're solutions so far haven't been great: hook up with corporations, get the government to fund some of you when it feels like it, and making college students to pay for it. Oh and they also use a prestige model to power the positive sum aspects- publish or perish (though the whole publishing system still involving money is a big sapper- but there's already movements to stop that and besides I'm off topic), which somewhat resembles how the microscopic content creators operate (we do it for the views shares and likes etc.)- but that doesn't solve the problem for content that actually requires physical resources (or supporting oneself- unless one is a being of pure intangible internetness). looks back over own comment Damn lots of words but nothing helpful. Oh well.

See: Rooster Teeth. They give advantages to watching on their site, great content and advantages to those who pay, and stay actively involved in their community.

They are also being very successful.

I think Vlogbrothers should stay on YouTube, however Hank and John's other channels should move completely to a separate site, where Vlogbrothers videos are uploaded as well. This allows them to create premium content that those who love Vlogbrothers can fund.

About the whole 99% watching 1% I don't see as a problem. The nature of online video is much more democratic and it selects the content you want. I only want to watch 1% of content, and YouTube is a great way of finding this content. Once you're at the point where your content needs to be funded beyond advertising you're at the point where your content should move onto other formats.

The problem brought up about 99% watching 1% isn't the democratic nature you're talking about. Yes, theoretically, the cream rises to the top, and certainly we're not all going to watch a very large percentage of YouTube ourselves. But the problem Hank brought up is the problem of advertisers and corporate types deciding what we want to watch, not us deciding what we want to watch.

For instance, advertisers want me to watch Annoying Orange. I can't stand the show. But industry people want to move YouTube closer to the TV model, where people watch what they watch simply because it's on, and their choices are limited. The same model applies to movie theaters and DVDs and whatnot. It's possible to find independent stuff, but it's extremely difficult. Most people don't want to put effort into their entertainment, so they pick from what's most readily and easily available.

That's what a lot of us don't want online video, or even YouTube specifically, to become. And it has become more difficult to just browse and find small, interesting channels with not much audience. It's still possible and fairly easy, mostly via word of mouth or activity sharing. But it's not as easy as it once was. If I'm just browsing, I'm mostly going to end up with the official channels of old media producers, and YouTube content creators who don't make content that I enjoy.

This model of business is meant to grab the most eyes possible, and that means niche crowds are snubbed. The Guild was pitched as a TV show originally, but industry people thought it was too niche to have any success.

As to your assertion that one should move onto other formats if the content needs funding beyond advertising, I wholly disagree. For one thing, we're trying to establish that online media can be whatever we want. There's no need to "move on" to other formats. For another, other formats introduce a whole new level of necessary funding. Online distribution is cheap to free for content creators, right now. Other formats require more money for distribution methods and marketing. So if the problem is, "I need more money to make better content," moving to a different format only introduces more costs that need to be met.

Furthermore, it looks like you're speaking mostly of Vlogbrothers and bigger YouTubers who are not in danger, where funds are concerned. I think this conversation is meant to also include smaller content creators, who maybe don't yet make enough money through advertising to properly fund their content.

You make some excellent points. What I took from Hank's video was a personal, rather than a general plight of "how is this content going to keep on working?", and then the general topic of "YouTube elite". So yes, the points I'm making to start with are pretty much focussed at John and Hank.

You're probably right in it being a general plight, but I don't see anything wrong with the advertising model in a general situation. If you have an expensive project that can't be started without lots of funding, the project might be good or it might be bad. Just like when you start a business you should have to convince someone that it'll be good to be invested in. There is no "model" that can provide every small youtuber with a means to make expensive content. It's just unrealistic to expect.

The company thing does bother me. But it's the same across the rest of life and I'm pretty used to it. As long as YouTube allows people to upload and share videos on the internet for free; then those interested in these people, like us, will find them. In my view as long as that stays, who YouTube features and who advertises on it doesn't bother me.

Edit: oh, and the format I was referring to was YouTube, not all of online video. I just meant moving to a different site.

I would be interested to know the numbers of people who are paying members of Roosterteeth (and what percentage this is of their revenue stream), I've been meaning to get around to becoming one since it would be nice to watch instead of listen to the podcast when it comes out.

But you don't get a whole lot more right? There's sponsors only chats and a couple of bonus videos right?

Personally I really like the current system of advertisements, plus a little bit of merchandise on the side, too. I always click on the ads when they come up, then close the window that pops up - they don't really bother me. As long as this is an easy and profitable enough way for YouTubers (especially new ones) to get money, I feel like the way it works at the moment is just fine. Perhaps an optional donation page for YouTubers could work as well. If you've seen Amanda Palmer's TED talk (and if you haven't, you should, she talks about how you shouldn't be afraid of asking your fans for things) you know what I mean - and Amanda earns all of her money through donations, she gives all her music out for free. If people are asked if they can spare some money to help out people they enjoy watching, I'm sure no-one would mind, and there would be a fair few donations (as long as it is asking, and not incessantly begging).

I think something like Flattr would be an ideal system for me. I can set a budget for how much I want to pay for internet content each month, then I allow that site to split the money based on﻿ whose content I watch. The current problem with this site currently is that there are simply too few sources of content that are part of the system.

If Youtube would create a system like this that would get rid of ads, it would be absolutely amazing. Unfortunately, being run by an advertising company, I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

I agree with you, and I wonder why it is that this service is not more popular? I haven't heard any of the creators that I follow online mention it, I only heard about it from the The Pirate Bay documentary.

Same here, actually. I was looking up reviews on the service, and it boils down to one problem- it never reached a critical mass. This system would only work well if a large portion of content providers supported the feature, which is currently not the case. This makes it hard for a consumer to justify using the service, therefore making it hard for providers to justify using it, etc.

This is why I think Youtube creating a system like this would be absolutely AMAZING. The critical mass would be hit almost instantaneously. But as I said before, Google=Ads, so in order for a system like this to happen without being supplemented by ads, we need to look elsewhere.

But then why not give it a try? That's what I'm wondering. Maybe just for a few months, see if people would sign up after big channels like Crash Course or SciShow start using it. If it doesn't work, we could easily drop it, no?
I think it should be with a third party service, though, because that allows you to also contribute to content in platforms besides YouTube.

The basis of the site is small weekly cash gifts, and everyone on Gittip is both a giver and a receiver. It's been around for nine months and we currently have about 800 active users exchanging about $2,000 per week. The site is real and it works and it would be such an awwwwweeessssoooommmeeee break to have a bigger community like Nerdfighters decide to use Gittip to fund itself.

Before I go further let me say that Gittip is funded on Gittip. I don't take a 10% cut off the top like a traditional business model would. I work on Gittip pretty much full time and my own personal self is on the site along with everyone else:

Gittip is designed to address just the sort of thing Hank talks about in the video, making new rules for funding content.

Yes, bigger names like John Oliver and Louis C.K. are selling direct to fans on a one-off basis. However, I would argue that it's going to be more powerful in the long run to build a general platform for content funding rather than each person building their own platform. Gittip is just such a platform and it's real and here today and ready for communities like Nerdfighters to start using it to end-run the suits and support themselves directly.

So maybe go sign in to Gittip with your Twitter account and set up a small weekly gift to Hank!

Great job with Gittip! It's really grown since I last looked at it. I didn't know you were a Nerdfighter. I've been doing kind of a similar thing with the /r/bitcointip bot on reddit. I also don't take a fee and rely on tips. It only supports one time tips and deals exclusively with bitcoin, which is both a strength and a weakness. I think the utility of bitcoin will be that there are no prerequisites. You don't need a bank account or credit card, and you can be any age and from any country. Any redditor can already accept bitcoin today with the bitcointip bot.

I've skimmed through some of Gittip's bitcoin issues on Github. Am I right in concluding that the problem is making USD and BTC play nice together? You would have to deal with the exchange rate fluctuations as well as tippers tipping in bitcoin but the tippee wanting to withdraw USD. It might be hard to do that without calling yourself an exchange and being subject to some of those regulations.

I don't know, I just think it wouldn't be fair to have people pay for content that has been free for all this time. I love nerdfighteria but I can't see my self paying to watch videos on YouTube. That's not the point of uploading videos on YouTube; the fact that its free allows more people to be involved in the community

I don't know how "unfair" it would be for people to charge for content. I mean, these creators on youtube are providing us with a service. When people provide a service usually you provide them with compensation. This is one of the differences I find on the internet. A lot of things that take people time and money, they let people get for free. I still don't like the idea of paying for subscriptions on youtube but that is just because I am used to getting this content for free.

Just because I don't like the idea of paying, doesn't mean it isn't a "fair". A lot of content on youtube is high-quality and it is being provided for free. For example, there are quite a few webseries that are fantastic! - and I get to watch those for free. I don't need to compensate the creators in anyway.

I really like this video by Pretty Much It on the topic of Paid Subscriptions: here

I doubt that will ever happen. They cares about their viewers and know that if they go to subscription based content, they will lose a big chunk of the community. They care about the message more than alienating parts of the community in the name of money.

Well, if enough people use it it could be really cheap, which might not be too bad. I mean, netflix and the likes are doing pretty well right? although that does sound like even more bussiness than youtube as is.

Ok so here's a question, if youtube subscriptions were a dollar a month how many youtube channels would you subscribe to. And then what if it was a dollar a year or a dollar for 2 years.

If you watch 100 of their videos a year you are giving them approximatly 30 cent right? (Less for vlogbrothers because of the types of ads they run). So any of the charges I outlined would increase revenue.

Just for me, if it was $1 a month, then probably less than a dozen which is quite a big decrease for me considering I am closing in on 240 subscriptions. Even if it was $1 a year, I couldn't justify more than 2-3 dozen subscriptions. Also, most of those subs would be to the biggest channels that output the most content. This would actually end up hurting smaller channels rather than helping them.

I also think it would greatly hurt small channels; it's a lot easier to justify a subscription to a big channel with high production values and a lot of content if it costs the same as a simple vlogger in his bedroom.

A dollar a month? I don't think that I would subscribe to Vlogbrothers if I had to pay that much. They put out at most, 32 minutes of content every month so which compared to other channels like Tek Syndicate and ThunderF00t, isn't very much. Tek Syndicate puts out about 2 hours of content every month and I think that I would pay for that. I have no problem with ads. I think that Hank has this idea that we are angry about having to see ads, but I don't care about them. If they support him, I'm fine with them, but I'm not going to pay money to watch his stuff.

I think we also have to remember the demographics of YouTube. The majority of audiences (especially of vloggers) have an extremely high percentage of young teenagers- mostly girls. I know it's not always the case, but still... would a parent really pay money for their child to watch content online? Probably not, not when they already pay for everything else.

On the other hand, it may be sort of beneficial. Having to pay to watch content will almost definitely curb the amount young teenagers watch. And with the increasing amount of younger and younger people coming into the online community, it could cause problems if it gets out of control (I'm mainly referring to "fan-girls/boys" who spend a lot of their time online watching this content... and getting obsessed with the people who make it).

I mean, I am a older teenage girl myself, but I have never really been infatuated by any teen heart throb e.g Justin Bieber, danisnotonfire etc, so I can't really understand why people are like that. But I am getting worried that this whole YouTube thing is getting bigger than it can handle... I am all for free content, but I think it can be controlled a lot better than it is, especially with "fan-girl" fan bases.

I like a hybrid advertising/subscription model; advertising for casual viewers, (optional) subscription for those who want more. None of the content itself would be exclusive to subscribers; there would be things similar to Kickstarter rewards and such to promote that option.

I understand previous such attempts at this have failed, though, so hopefully someone more business-minded than myself can weigh in.

Is it likely that google will ever go for this though? Considering their business is advertising? I guess we'll see what they think of this kind of model when they eventually institute paid youtube channels.

I think this would end up being like Spotify, where the people who subscribe eventually become those who are treated as the norm, and those who don't pay are effectively (pardon the term) "shitmunchers" to the admins.

you could give up a small portion of your computer's proccessing power to science? schemes like this already exist where they use a bunch of small packages of proccessing power from all over the world, as opposed to having to buy an expensive supercomputer. This would fit in with Nerdfighteria's overall message. I am not sure if it will be enough, so maybe it should be accompanied with a small amount of adds, but they could be less disruptive at the very least.

I don't think the point of the video was really to chose between advertising and donations/subscriptions. There are significant drawbacks to all of them. Especially with subscriptions, that require losing a large portion of the community that either can't (especially with younger people) or wouldn't pay. No, i think the point was to get people thinking about other ways of doing it.

Exactly. Everyone's talking about the ads - which Hank specifically mentioned not really wanting to get into - or donations. Yes, Kickstarter campaigns are cool, and it's nice if you have people that CAN pay. But I'm a college student, so every dollar counts for food and stuff for me right now! These two ways obviously have a LOT of cons, so... another way is preferable.

We are mostly thinking about supporting content in a monetary sense. What about if we thought about it in a trading sense? What would you trade for content? Currently, we trade our time. It seems like a really good trade because the content is fabulous. I don't know the answers, or if this is even the right way to think about it, but at least it is different and a place to start.

Also, after Hank talked about Amanda Fucking Palmer's Ted Talk, I had to watch it (did he tweet it maybe? IDK). Her method - asking people to support cool projects as they can however they can - is very thought-provoking and had me wondering where else it could be applied.

Trade our resources for theirs, as needed.
I'm not very well informed as to how youtube videos rack up such massive costs (well, some) but I feel like much of it is from the services and tools used to produce the videos.
If we were to negate money and (as Amanda Palmer said) as for what we need, it will come. If Hank asks for translations, he gets them free from people around the world - a service that could cost money.

Perhaps we need an online "store" where people posted portfolios or skills or even just contact information and their opinions on sharing. Then creators could get in contact with others who have resources they need. Ex. "I enjoy making stick people drawings, and like to work together with ideators to create." - this person could be contacted by someone with a rough concept and they could build content for a video if desired. OR "I have 500 hats from a high school production that need a purpose. I can help deliver, and would like to know the intended use, but have no desire in altering created work" - this person could be contacted if hats were needed for a project, but the artist had an idea solidified already.

It seems idealistic, but perhaps all we need is to broaden people's connections. This would also help new viewers and small creators gain interest and potential connections to what would have become the 1%.

I think one thing that has certainly been proved by The Brain Scoop and many others is that Merchandising is a powerful tool if it is available. Though I will admit that I was alarmed to hear that TBS is running at a loss!

My personal view is that advertising is a very powerful model (despite what Hank says). I think that the model we have on YouTube at the moment encourages something of a meritocracy. Those who produce good content will retain an audience. Its a slow process that most likely takes time.

I know AdBlock is a concern, and it certainly impacts on the money to be made from this model. But I don't think it's particularly dangerous to assume that the same people who refuse to watch adverts are unlikely to pay towards content on the web.

Yes we live in an historical era. Youtube is going to become very important historically. Years from now when my grandson looks up at me and asks me why I never helped in the conception of his mother, I'm gonna tell him cuz I was too busy watching YouTube videos to hit his grandmother on the head with a wooden club and drag her back to my cave. Somehow, I think he'll appreciate that. So let's throw out the old rules and make some new ones.

Frankly if i financially supported every single tidbit I found on YouTube, I couldn't afford the upkeep on the moss in this cave, much less afford any ladies to drag back to this cave. heck, I can't afford a wooden club even now.

Yes I'm aware prehistoric man never really lived in caves but the mud hut or tree canopy analogies aren't as fun to play with as good old fashioned caves. So what if Flintstones wasn't a documentary? You still know what I mean. Don't you? If you do please tell me cuz I lost myself back there somewhere. I think I was supposed to incorporate a time machine in the first paragraph. That would have made a lot more sense.

I don't have any real suggestions for this, but a few interesting observations. Thinking about what Hank said about what we find valuable about content - it's worth remembering that a lot of the projects we (Or I) really enjoy watching are community-based. So perhaps we should be thinking about them less as about producing content and more about providing services to communities - which is a totally different ball game when it comes to funding. Here in the UK - a lot of organisations who run community projects can apply to local councils or the arts council to get core-funding met for their projects, as well as a raft of philanthropic organisations. The problem with YouTube of course is that it's not tied into any specific geographical location. But, theoretically, if say the Foundation to Decrease World Suck became a charitable organisation, you'd be able to apply to get core-funding met as well as project specific funding that YouTubers could apply for. I have no idea how realistic this would be in the States - but here in the UK I can think of at least one website - IdeasTap, which runs on a similar model and has done very well for itself.

I also want to see more diverse content on youtube. I get that comedy & viral random stuff will always be Kings of youtube but I want to see more intellectual content.A little less dumb/reaction humor & daily vlogs (which still has a place on youtube) and a little more intellectual thought provoking content. What does everyone else think about this?

this. which is why I love the nerdfighteria.. "group" of videos I would say.

Like before The Brain Scoop, I would have NEVER taken an interest to the whole animal world beyond 'oh hai look its a lion' but now, I AM. It's awesome.

And dare I say it, but the way that John and Hank have gone about The Brain Scoop, and Crash Course, and SciShow.. I think if they kept at it, they could be making or helping new creators make videos about.. LANGUAGES, or MATH. or other.. learning things. Cooking show? HECK YEAH!

I don't like the humor and viral stuff on YouTube, I don't really even watch that.

I really like taxes, because before that the only certainty was death.

--John Green

Taxes are a great model, I think. People have grown to dislike them because the capitalist is often portrayed as the only model in use. That simply isn't true. We get our roads, police, and education without traditional models.

I think what Nerdfighteria and Khan Academy and Veritasium and et al do transcends conventional economics. The 'vote with your dollar' model leaves us without our veggies.

What we need is a model of taxation and representation that matches the awesome that Nerdfighteria has. We create a cultural construct, like tipping, that rewards good service without being a jerk about it.

I propose a Congress that is funded by viewers for the purpose of distributing funds to artists who make freely available media. The representatives of this congress shall be installed by votes, with only one representative added each month. This way the inflation is predictable.

I like this idea. Voluntary taxes. Why stop at artists? Make it for charities and other worthy causes too. If you pay them you get some kind "Awesome License" like a drivers license but that expires every year.

I don't think the "Awesome License" is the right way to think about it- to me that feels like capitalism creeping in to where it doesn't work. A license to be awesome is something we are all born with. Not paying into the pot doesn't can not revoke it. We don't want DFTBA to turn into DFTPayYourTaxes.

This would have to be venture capitalism for all- the more nimble cousin of Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. We give money expecting not that we will benefit but that everyone will.

Suppose a subreddit with titles like

[$400] I want to make a weekly web series about building computers

Where people could vote on what projects they want funded. [top][all time] then becomes a queue and as donations come in projects start getting funded.

You can't decide where a donation will go- this is the community's money. Everyone has equal voice in the matter, even if they don't make the same amount of money. If your favorite projects never seem to hit the top of the list, why not just give money so that more stuff will be payed out sooner?

I agree that "Awesome license" isn't the exact thing to go with. I guess I should have phrased it better as something like the mugs and totebags PBS and NPR sell for supporting them (But also have something verifiable that you could put on your twitter profile or webpages to show that you're a supporter.)

I think if your favorite projects never seem to hit the top of the list, you should donate specifically to that project. Part of the utility in a pool of funds for things that you don't decide exactly where the money goes is that someone else can do the research and take the responsibility for deciding what will do the most good or be the best use of the funds. This makes some sense for charities and roads, but does it make sense for things like art and content? I think it might.

I think we won't know what'll happen for sure until we try and experiment with some of these things. That's an interesting idea for a subreddit. If you made it, I'd subscribe and enable the bitcoin tipping bot there. I don't know how quickly it'd catch on, but it'd be a start.

That sounds like the ABC in Australia. A largely independent media outlet funded by the tax payer producing the best of Australian TV (Veritasium has actually made stories for an ABC show called Catalyst). I am worried this will tie up getting funds for production to a lengthy application and approval process.

So long as it is a streamlined process, the criteria for show assessment and all applications are made publicly available this could be a pretty good model.

Maybe I misunderstood but how would you manage such a thing? Also Taxes are paid because people have to, people do not have to watch video on Youtube. They could just say "Ok, off to another video site I go". So calling it a tax is just another way of saying a subscription that works similar to say Netflix and Spotify.

And back to the first point, how would you even begin to organize who gets what and how much from a pool of millions of content creators. The task of trying to decide who gets what would be mind boggling. Also such a system is so vulnerable to manipulation. Possibly much worse than the advertising model. Stick a few people at the top to run the show and eventually you are bound to have corruption.

Reddit content is organised by the people, and it works. Let people organize who gets how much on Youtube with donations. No need to hire a huge team of statisticians to sort through all the data Youtube creates.

Crowd source the responsibility and you will end up with an unbiased result.

No taxes -> no content. This isn't to prevent people who haven't paid from watching, it's to fund the video in the first place. There is no video site where you can watch what hasn't been made.

As stated, a Congress of elected persons would distribute the funds by voting.

Also such a system is so vulnerable to manipulation.

To manipulate this congress you'd have to control the elected, so it's everyone's job to elect people who won't be manipulated. Do you think any amount of money will make the Vlogbrothers vlog about Nike or Coke instead of what they vlog about now? They do VidCon and Kiva and etc w/o being manipulated.

Possibly much worse than the advertising model.

Advertising can't be manipulated, it is manipulation.

No need to hire a huge team of statisticians to sort through all the data Youtube creates.

Who's hiring statisticians? The Congress is implemented because we don't know what we want. Would you have proposed Brain Scoop? I wouldn't have, but Hank had the foresight to. The money needs to get to people like him so he can give it to people like the Lizzie Bennett Diaries.

I'm afraid I am still unsure about what you mean by it being a Tax and not a subscription. Or maybe that isn't what you mean... :S confused

The people elected will be those with the most financial backing to be elected just as any other electoral system tends to end up being subject to. If you wanted to be elected and you where against someone who had a large amount of money supporting them you would be at a large disadvantage of being elected because the opponent can pay for advertising and backing that you could not. Its one of the illusions of democracy. But that's a whole other debate :P

I'm not worried that Vlogbrothers or other channels would be put into a situation where they must advertise a particular product. What I believe would happen is that the money would be pooled towards channels that financial backers have the most vested interest in and not the viewers. Lol I like your twist on the advertising is manipulation comment, but that wasn't the kind of manipulation I had in mind and I'm sure you can tell the kind I was referring to.

My point is simply that we should avoid handing over the ability for a small group of "elected" people to choose what media is deemed as worthy entertainment for the masses. You would be creating a user generated version of SKY.

W.R.T. Nerdfighteria in general: My favorite thing about nerdfighteria is that it ISN'T a fandom. It's more of a philosophical or even pseudo-religious group, in that it's focused around not WHAT we do so much as it is HOW we do it. Sure, we all like to watch Hank and John be doofuses - but the biggest parts of being a nerdfighter are being open, imagining people complexly, and being enthusiastic.

W.R.T. Funding Online Content - I think the advertising model works quite well, actually. Sure, no one really likes ads, but I personally don't use adblock because I am fine with seeing ads (even prerolls! Sometimes they are quite interesting) if it means I get to watch stuff for free. With that being said, I understand the aversion to advertisement and wanting a different way to fund online content. I'll speak with regards to vlogbrothers and the sister (brother?) channels for the moment:
1) Have a website with premium content for each of your shows with a subscribing fee (annual or monthly). Come up with sufficient funds to eliminate advertisements between this and merchandise sales.
Pros: DFTBARecords already accomplishes part of this.
Cons: Would need a LOT of premium subscriptions to fund this.
2) Annual Vlogbrothers Kickstarter: basically make an annual (or biannual or whatever) kickstarter, and set the goal as whatever you make from advertisements each year. Possible perks would be being able to vote on video topics/themes during particular months, suggesting topics for HankSongs or games for HankGames, and for high donations stuff like guesting in a HankGames video, getting personal vlogbrothers videos, etc. Stretch goals (if the community raises a lot of money) could be stuff like more frequent updating schedules.
Pros: Would probably allow Nerdfighteria to subsit entirely on donations.
Cons: Might fail. Also, there might be a "rift" between those nerdfighters who do donate to keep the project going and those who don't; I suspect nerdfighters will be better than that though :)

There are probably other ideas but I'm not that creative to think of them. There's also of course the option to charge to watch videos (which I think would work for channels like CrashCourse or SciShow but not really for vlogbrothers or hankgames)

Just something to consider....
Hank, if there is a "shrinking" in the "number of pots" going on, and YouTube is﻿ becoming more like old school television with the alphabet networks, then that means you and John are part of this new set of YouTube elites. You two are like YouTube's NBC Universal. And Toby "Tobuscus" Turner would be, like, the new Viacom, RayWilliamJohnson would be Fox, Smosh would be CBS, Roosterteeth would be Disney, Pewdiepie would be... wait, where was I going with this?

Oh, right - you ARE the new YouTube elite, and this gives you power, including some power to help shape the new rules. If all of the channels with the most subscribers band together to demand YouTube change their policies and rules, then they will have to listen to you. You can use this power to squish the little guy, but it sounds like you want to do the exact opposite, to promote more content and creativity. You need to get the other major YouTubers on board with this and lobby Google to implement some of the good ideas the people on this thread are suggesting. Get RoosterTeeth in on it. Get Swoozie. Get Machinima and nigahiga and freddiew. YouTube and Google may be big, but they have to listen to their community.

All very true. But you need the materials to create the art. And the manpower, in some cases. Which requires some form of funding. Artists have long struggled, but even the poorest of painters must still have a way to acquire paint, or nothing can be painted. And the more the content is paid for in some manner, the better the content is usually capable of being.

We've seen this at play many times. John and Hank made great content in 2007, but their content has become better over time, and they've become more prolific in creating it. Part of that is practice, but part of it is also access to more and better resources to create with. We see it a lot in other video creators and in webcomics as well: updates are often inconsistent and/or rough (perhaps even unfinished) until the creator reaches the point where the art pays for itself, and they no longer need other sources of income. Day jobs - even artsy ones - leave less time to create art.

John and Hank also have teams of people helping them make their videos on SciShow and CrashCourse and LizzieBennetDiaries and TheBrainScoop. And I believe those people get paid for their efforts. That helps them be more prolific AND create higher quality content. (And Hank, correct me if I'm wrong about the people getting paid thing.)

The discussion here isn't really about vlogbrothers, it's more about the educational content that costs prohibitively more, and they're not looking for it to be lucrative, they're looking for it to break even.

If you look at how much content creators actually make from ad revenue on youtube, I don't think it amounts to much more than 1 or 2¢ per subscriber per month. Wouldn't take much to match/beat that with actual money.

Flattr's model (as someone suggested), could actually work brilliantly for YT - imagine how far $5 per month would go between 100 subscriptions. And if people don't want to pay that, I guess they could opt for ads instead.

Not a Fan of the Paid Subscription to be able to see some youtube creators videos, but i do understand it.. being a Youtube Content creator myself, 1 its not easy, 2 Its not always cheap, but it depends on the creator and if they can as it is get their following to justify paying to see them. It would make sense specially cause many are part of networks for the networks to have a one time fee to see the networks creators content all access to that networks stuff. that or just have youtube finally make sure all platform are properly monitizable and before every video non-skip pre roles of 30seconds play before and depending on length in between..
thoughts?

I've always wanted YouTube, and Google in general, to have a subscription option. You can watch as you wish, just with ads, and by buying a subscription you get no ads, can choose who gets the most of your money, and so on. It's a donation in a way, but gets rid of ads and adds a few more options.
Advertising is fine for most people right now, but as standard TV becomes obsolete, more people will go to YouTube and similar services, and just be surround by ads. Yes, TV has ads, but unlike TV everything is chosen by you...except what and how much ads there are. Not only that, but at which point is TV completely cut off from internet, where the tables are turned so that the people using TV are in the minority.
Online video will become very engraved in life over the next few decades, and it's important to get the model right in the first few steps of the internet.

TL:DR - Right now advertising is fine for YT, but subscription has to be an option for those who want it, especially in the future.

I bought a CGP Grey t-shirt, so merchandise is an option, but it's not a sustainable one. Using the method you mentioned is a bit too fussy for me, but if you love one or two youtubers and don't really care about the rest you watch, that is an option of course.

I think the major problem that online video, especially youtube, faces is one of curation. I think the trend towards fewer pots is a reflection of the over all trend in youtube towards existing channels. Frankly how we find new stuff or how you even just browse youtube is a lot worse than it used to be.

In the olden days when there was steam power and the British Empire ruled the waves I would procrastinate down the most watched/discussed/commented lists finding random new channels. These days do those lists even exist anymore? What options you have for browsing youtube are getting more and more flooded by big companies coming in and hogging the space. If I wanted to watch a lot of that I could just turn on the TV.

If we give people a place for their content to flourish then I think we will do a lot better in finding ways to fund their great ideas.

I've suggested symbolic shares over at the video, and Hank said he'd think about that idea. I feel like this is a good option as it requires very little cost on their part, allowing our donations to have maximum effect, while still rewarding people for the donation in some way. Basically, I want to buy Nerdfighteria and own it with the rest of the community.

To be clear, you gain no advantage from buying shares, I don't want to tier the community or anything, there's no creative control, no money, perhaps your name will go somewhere and you get an e-certificate or something.

Hi! I'm Dan. And I have an idea that I'd like to do with Hank. I hope he reads this and reaches out to me to discuss further -- I'm dan.lewis at gmail -- because I may end up doing this anyway.

Let me explain.

First, I have a small publication of my own and struggle with similar issues. Mine is an email newsletter, Now I Know, which goes to 80,000 people every weekday. It's a daily story about trivia/interesting facts, very nerdy, not very fightery. It's a hobby/side project. It's ad supported and makes enough to be a worthy hobby but not a worthy job.

I've strongly considered going to donations route but haven't for various reasons not worth going into here. More importantly, though, I realized that if I didn't have a full time job that wasn't a crazy time drain, I couldn't have started Now I Know in the first place. I mean, something had to pay the bills. And while I have that luxury, there are a lot of creative types out there who don't have the time flexibility and the money to do this.

That's what Hank's trying to fix. He's not trying to figure out how to make microdonations work or whatever. People like him and John, and for that matter, people like me, can eke out a reasonable amount of money just by going to our audiences and asking for help. Ask for donations. Run some sort of Kickstarter. Write a book. Make t-shirts. Whatever. We choose not to, often, because the ad money is better or because it's not in us to ask, but that, again, is besides the point. Once you have the "1000 true fans" you're on the right path.

The problem: What about the awesome creatives who don't have the 1,000 true fans yet?

Figure out a way to get them paid -- so they can build their own following -- and everything else may fall into place.

Shows could be funded (in part) by fundraising efforts from non-commercial groups, who basically sponsor shows. For example, "Todays show is brought to you by the Little River Cookie Eating Team who raised X dollars to support today's show."

The funding group could also get some 'air-time' to promote themselves.

Now this is just of the top of my head and is not terribly viable given it's a top down approach rather than a bottom up approach, however, while talking to my brother who uses YT for simply music and some other random stuff I came to see that there are 2 distinct audiences for YT. People like him who want to watch music videos on Vevo and celebrities channels etc and there's people like me and you guys who watch YT for the community side and to keep up with people that interest us. The 1st audience is much larger in general life than the 2nd and it has begun to outnumber the second audience as YT has become more ubiquitous.

A separation therefore of commercial and community would benefit everyone. People would choose which they were and would be presented with different suggestions for videos even different search results. Occasional searchers would get what they want and would be given search results that prefered the commercial side of YT while Community people would be given search results that brought up self-described community youtubers more often. That would close the community off a bit which would have it's benefits in fewer trolls and better suggestions and it's limits in fewer unique new viewers and it would be hard for companies like Rooster Teeth or Maker Studios who are successful commercially in part due to their community, which do they pick? The other major benefit however would be that the commercial side would be filled with companies promoting their own channels by producing new content. It would have it's own revenue steams allowing YT to focus its talent scouting and support projects to be focused solely on the community. This provides funding while making YT a nicer place. I think the issue of people disliking ad supported content and wanting a (voluntary?) subscription instead is a parallel but not identical problem. I think the problem of fewer pots, as Hank would say, might be solved by a divide in the YT service, the funding issues can be solved afterwards.

Anyway it's 2:40 in the morning in London and I need to get up early so i'm going to go pass out but still food for thought...or maybe delirious sleep addled dross, you decide!

I'm sure the community would grow via other community members sharing and talking about videos. Maybe when commercial/occasional youtubers start searching for community style videos they could be prompted to reclassify themselves as community and would be induced into our side. The expansion would obviously be much slower but i'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing. It is after all the uncontrolled expansion that is causing the problems (and making YT such a good business opportunity. I prefer a smaller, steady in subscriers, views, comments etc, slowly expanding audience to an huge, erratic, picky community that is rapidly expanding. Again this is just brain crack not a fully thought out thesis.

I don't think it's up to us, or anyone else to decide what rate of expansion is good. I think expansion should be determined solely by people clicking on videos, all of which are in one big pot. Segregating videos just sounds like a great way to watch stuff whither and die.

Anyone seen https://www.gittip.com/? Gittip is a platform for sustainable crowd-funding. It's based around small, weekly, cash gifts. Right now it only works with Twitter (and GitHub) but if it worked for YouTube accounts it could be just what the doctor ordered, maybe?

The thing with crowdfunding is that I can only afford to crowdfund so many projects/channels, and I subscribe to more channels that I can afford to crowdfund. What about charging the corporations like Vevo to have channels, and then redirecting that money to indie channels with good content in a way that reflects those channels' viewer numbers: likes/comments/like-to-view-ratio/number of subscribers/some combination of the above?

One option that I haven't really seen brought up is one that Rhett and Link have used with their Good Mythical Morning show: sponsorship. There are many ways this can go, but if we're trying to increase the "number of pots", why not create some kind of network to connect smaller internet retailers or sites to some of these YouTube channels that have a "smaller" audience by some content standards? This approach probably wouldn't do anything earth-shattering for the financial side of things, but it would give both the YouTube channels and the websites involved in sponsorship more exposure, which has the potential to open more doors down the road. Ideally, this could be done, at least in the beginning, by simply connecting sites and channels without necessarily having to have a financial exchange, then maybe progressing into some sort of monetary situation down the line. On the YouTube side of things, this give creators the ability to choose what sort of sites they want to promote, which helps to direct a more targeted audience to those sites, people who would be more likely to be interested in the goods/services of those sites because of the "niche" audiences these YouTube channels reach. On the website side of things, they could link to videos by the YouTubers they work with, which has the potential to drive their traffic to that channel. This would also be a great way to connect YouTubers who have ideas beyond video to people with websites who can help make these ideas reality. As someone who watches GMM daily, the sponsor "plugs" don't bother me at all because they're incorporated so seamlessly into the show by some kind of humour or joke or weird item; this format allows YouTubers to retain their creativity and individuality while creating a sort of mutual back scratching between growing sites and YouTube channels. While this sort of thing certainly lends itself more to some video formats, such as "talk shows", over others, such as webseries, it's an idea. YouTube is so new and diverse that there is no way we can have a "one-size-fits-Hall (er, all)" answer, and I think that’s something we all need to keep in mind while discussing these ideas, as it seems like there are a lot of large-scale ideas being thrown about here, but I think one of the things we all enjoy about YouTube is how there are so many diverse options for content, and I think we need solutions that are just as diverse.

The process of helping people discover content needs improvement. Currently it all tends to be based on popularity, and what is "trending". Now, things going viral is cool, but messy and unpredictable. A better system for helping creators find audience members is needed.

People need to have more opportunities to have "chance encounters" with new and unknown content. I feel like I can sometimes sit too long in the safe harbors of familiar content. YouTube tries to recommend things that are similar to what I already subscribe to.

And really, isn't what ruined TV a system that rewarded making content already similar to what existed, but punishing the content that was different?

What about one person per video pays to get featured in the description or end screen? But it would be a bid, rather than a fixed price. This wouldn't raise all the money but it would be a start.

And thebrainscoop could also upload the videos again as private (without ads) and people would pay to see the video without ads + a slightly extended cut version. They would also get exclusive interaction with thebrainscoop as they would be able to reply to almost each person depending on how expensive it is / how many people pay for it. (they would view the private videos by adding the username to "Only people you choose can view" section).

This is a good idea for a channel that already has a substantial following - from where I sit, 50,000 subscribers is pretty substantial - or for a channel that has someone big and well-known driving other people towards it, but I can't see it working for people like me who don't even have 100 subscribers, because videos uploaded as "private" aren't even listed, so how would new people even know to pay so that they can see them?

Yeah I agree, It will only work for channels over 50,000 subs because, sad to admit but I don't think anyone will want to pay for peoples videos that have under 100 subs. I think for new people to see it the channel would mention it once or twice and maybe every few month or put it in the description of every video.

(working 80hrs this week, and I rambled. putting TLDR at the top. much love)

TL:DR HOW to get the money to creators is great to focus on (I like pay what you want micro-transactions myself), but I think it is also important to focus on the shift in culture we can create/continue to drive. The engagement, the WHY we want to (donate/pay/etc.)

This is a big complex issue but there seem to be two very interrelated sets of ideas sticking out to me.

1) The Functional nuts and bolts of how to get money to content creators. (The How).
2) The engagement of supporters in the aforementioned nuts and bolts (The Why)

I feel like kickstarter/indiegogo etc etc continually blow people (and their expectations) away. (That's what started this thread right?) Maybe that is because our expectations are wrong. By this I don't mean that we should expect people to pay, but rather that we should stop being surprised that people WANT to pay.

In order to do the nuts and bolts part right, I think it would be useful to consider more than just the old consumer/producer method of commerce/business. I.E. Consumer wants a good deal/price on a great product someone else produces.

People say, "we are used to getting free things on the internet, people haven't paid in the past why would they pay in the future".

People are paying right now! I buy DFTBA shirts instead of normal shirts, and I donated to the Hello, Harto tour and a lot of other kickstarters because I feel like I am part of those communities OR even just those ideas! (I buy humble bundles and don't play them, but I support the idea). ***Not that you should buy them in order to feel like you are a part of these communities, just that I buy them because I do (if that makes sense).

One of the things I find most powerful about online video is that initially it allowed anyone to create content. It wasn't just a big network that could make video content.

Then the real shift happened, when we all could create, we all became creators. Even if we weren't all making videos we all could engage directly.

The thing we are seeing now (and I would argue the reason our expectations need adjustment) is it is allowing anyone to create and engage with community.

John and Hank are the vlog brothers, but WE are nerdfighteria. And WE raised crazy money for P4A. Hartosexuals gave Hanna almost a quarter million, Amanda Palmer raised 1.2, this list goes on.

What I am trying to get at is yes the nuts and bolts are important, but in addition we need to grow healthy, strong, engaged communities that we construct together where people WANT to engage! (And I would argue this isn't just about the whole "content is king" b.s.)

Where did you find your favorite youtubers?(artists/writers/musicians?). Most of the people I watch regularly on youtube I found from other youtubers.

People keep talking about how hard it is to get noticed AND how hard it is to find new content.

What if as part of this new nuts and bolts of funding focus we also focused on how to grow communities?

What if it became common practice (starts somewhere, all the big channels and the little ones too) that every friday each of us makes a 30 second video about 1 channel (or more) that we watch and why we watch it. What would happen to the cross pollination of strong communities like nerdfighteria, sports racers, the nation, etc. etc. What would happen to the community and engagement if this was became the norm in youtube culture?

I don't think it would dilute anything, People would just be able to find the things they are really really passionate about. And That is more important (or at least as important) as the HOW they can then support / engage with those creators.

I only have 60 subscribers but quite a few of them are really engaged! And I bet they are looking to really engage with other stuff too, and we have something in common.

There are always going to be people who use youtube to watch a music video, but the real power is the communities we make. Because those are the people making things mind blowing things happen.

And if the question is only about how do we get money, how do we get money now, then I think we might miss out. And the whole 99% of people watching 1% of content. That's a cultural shift.

What other ways can we strengthen communities As people engaged in making said communities (by this other than JUST trying to make the best content we can)?

I am going to sleep... Sorry about the rambles. And there are lots of great ideas in this thread!!! Certainly don't mean to dismiss any of it, just something also worth talking about.

I've always wondered about whether or not it would be possible to have a system whereby you pay for the content using your computer's processing power rather than advertising. Here's my idea in a messy semi-sequential bullet point form:

Users install a piece of software that runs whenever their computer has free resources/is idle and processes data from a server and uploads the results.

Points are added to the user's account according to how much processing their computer does.

These points become a form of internet currency that can be used in various ways. With respect to YouTube I imagine/propose a system whereby when you watch a video points are drained from your account if they are available, and if they are not you are shown an ad in the same way you are currently. Other services could also use these points as a form of currency.

However this whole system relies on these points being valued highly enough, which in turn relies on there being a very large demand for this type of processing and I just don't know if that demand exists.

There are also security concerns with any system like this, but I think these could be overcome fairly effectively. If you're reading this then your computer is probably already running code from an external source anyway - JavaScript from Reddit.

Both this post and this idea should probably be fleshed out further, however I fear if I get too invested in editing I'll never post it at all, so, my apologies. If anyone's even reading this - I'm pretty late to the party - then feel free to tell me why this is a stupid idea.

EDIT - Clarification
TPC (Theoretical Processing Company) - would allow these points to be exchanged for real money. They would also have an API that allows other services to integrate their system. In the case of YouTube, customers would agree to integrate their TPC account with their YouTube account and then YouTube would transfer some of those points from their TPC account to YouTube's TPC account whenever they watch a video. YouTube can then redeem those points for actual money and content creators would receive it in exactly the same way they currently receive ad money.

The problem I see with this idea is that I can't eat points; I can't buy books or clothes with points; I can't pay the mortgage with points; I can't buy a better video camera with points... Making good content takes up real time and uses real resources, but points are a made-up-only-valuable-within-the-interwebs thing. Points aren't very valuable for me. There may be others who feel differently, but that is my own personal take on it.

Well, if they would transfer to real money, then you might be onto something. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we would get points/money from others who give it out of their own stash, and then give amounts that we feel were appropriate from our own stash to people whom we felt deserved it based on how much we liked and wanted to support their content? Is that what you envision?

Wait, I'm a doob - I just reread your original comment and I was mixing up what you said with what someone else said. Nevermind.

I have to say I'm not totally clear on what processing would happen on my computer - does this mean other people's programs running on my computer? I'm not as knowledgeable about computers as most of the people here probably are. :-/ But it sounds like it could be interesting, as long as a) it doesn't make my computer die faster than it would otherwise; and b) my computer was safe from viruses and other nastiness.

Well I believe - I'm no expert - that the Bitcoin system uses the user's processing power to run the whole system and gives users small rewards for helping to run it. The idea with this is that other companies would use this service to process large amounts of data and would be paying TPC (Theoretical Processing Company) to do that for them. TPC would then spread that processing among the people running their software and reward them with redeemable points - I've added a clarification to the original post that attempts to explain that.

It's true that users with more powerful computers would have an advantage but that's already true in other settings and not something I really see as a problem. As I said in the original comment, if a user has no points available then they would be shown an advert.

I am fully aware that this is not a perfect solution to all of the industry's problems - it's just the only alternative to advertising that I can come up with. If people like Hank and John want to be able to provide free content while still making a profit then a video view must have some value. That value can either come from the user - as it does with adverts, or it can come from the machine with which the user is viewing the content. Personally I would prefer to be able to compensate content creators for their work while having the best experience consuming that content that I possibly can.

There's a big discussion going on at the moment about copyright law and piracy and how artists make money and I think this is a potential solution that would satisfy both parties - the users get free, zero-effort content and the creators get compensated when their content is consumed.

Of course this whole thing is very ambitious and relies heavily on there being a large demand for the users' processing power which may or may not exist...

I'm fully aware that I'm rambling again, sorry - I really shouldn't try and explain stuff with this much coffee in my system.

ok, I haven't got the courage to read the 212 comments, so I'll just put my comment here and you can comment or ignore it if it's redundant.

So I saw a couple of things that go in my direction. I think micropayment is part of the solution but as some people said, it hasn't really taken off: "why would I pay for free content"

so some thoughts thrown around:
- have a micropayment system.
- make it mandatory. what i mean by that is on the concept of the "global license". this is a monthly fee you pay so that content/culture can be created. Netflix and the likes are on this model.
so what if your ISP included a 5$ global license in its monthly fee that you have to pay if you want your internet access. I would be ready to go for that. then since you micropayment account contains money you are "forced" to pay, then you are going to distribute it!
- ADS now. I think they won't disappear. let's say we keep them more or less where they are today but change a bit how the money works. say for example that the host still gets the money (Youtube has to finance itself) but then the content producers don't get the proceeds of the ads (or less) and rather the "consumer" gets his micropayment account credited a bit. that would be money you would have to spend on supporting content.

then a few things to even out the distribution of wealth (is anybody else wearing red today?), as I have seen quickly:

make sure the shows have a way to report properly their financials, every show in the same manner (platform provided by the host, like youtube).
then you could have some fancy things, like a gauge indicating the amount of money necessary for X episodes versus the amount already paid. when you then go and see Hank speaking some sense into things on Friday, you might realize that those guys now have too much money, and you'll keep your micropayment this month for something else you fancy.

the fund idea that I quickly saw is endearing although again, who chooses what goes with what, might be harder. some nerdfighter like the vlogbrothers, some crashcourse, some everything but hank games harry potter, ... but I think it is definitely worth exploring.

I don't know about the US and other country, but in France, if you own a TV, you have to pay a tax. that is the "global licence" on the public french content. Wait a minute, so:
- I already pay for a mandatory "global license"
- but it goes to content I never watch (I mostly use my TV only for DVDs and a bit of gaming).

I'm not saying the state should necessarily organize that by the way, just making the remark that we may not be too far away from something like that.

You know, I was totally thinking, "People would never go for having to pay a monthly license for YouTube," and then you reminded me of the licensing system in France. It's the same in the UK: they call it a TV License. I remember hating the idea when I lived there, but it beats PBS' fundraising drives, and I quickly got used to it. It's a great idea. And being able to choose where our money went each day would make a huge difference.

and one thing, I'm not talking here about Youtube in particular right (although applying to everything might get more complex). I'm just saying having a flatter system with mandatory money in there. you spend it on youtube shows, on newspapers, on reddit, whatever you want... as long as it is content/services and not goods on Amazon or stuff like that.

It's fairly obvious from reading this thread that most people dislike ads. And another sentiment that keeps cropping up is the difficulty of discovering new content and being discovered. What if we take back the ads by allowing users to show five or ten seconds of their best work (with a link to their channel/blog/kickstarter/whatever) at the beginning (or end) of another channel's video in exchange for a donation? I'm not sure how clear that sentence was -- let me give you an example:

Let's say I've just started a style/beauty vlog that currently only has 50 subscribers. I can donate to The Lizzie Bennet Diaries a certain amount, and as a "perk" they'll show a five-second clip from my milkmaid braid tutorial at the end of an episode. Suddenly I have 200,000 eyeballs on me.

There are a few flies in this ointment, the biggest one being I don't know how much money the donation would have to be to make this model feasible. People who know more about how ads work: help me out on this? If it's over $100 it seems unlikely that the average independent content creator could afford that, but maybe I'm wrong. Also, this system couldn't fund less popular channels (like my fictional style/beauty vlog, for example) because it's unlikely that users would want to "advertise" on channels that aren't getting a lot of views.

I kinda find it ok as an idea but it is certainly worth digging into.
the problem is that doing so, you are creating an ad space in another persons content, and then you'll start having people competing for it, and the money would escalate.
plus the money then goes to the "big" channels that have a lot of viewers, and the small advertising channel at best gets exposure.

I think there is something to be taken from your idea, but might need to dig further and wrap it in a different coating for it to become something.

What if when you finish watching a YouTube video you are able to give a certain amount to the maker (in Bit coins). Its like donating but easier. We also set up a site where you can earn bit coins by either watching ads or sharing the video on Facebook or Twitter. A custom URL is generated so we can keep track of who shared it and give a certain number of bit coins per viewer to them.

But you've just replaced watching ads to give money with watching ads to give money?

And it has other problems like if this is just a site which you sit in front of to watch ads how does it know you didn't just go there, leave it running and go do something else. Also I think most people wouldn't bother donating.

You don't have to earn bitcoins that way. You could just buy them or get them from doing work. (or get them tipped to you the same way)

I think the bitcoin for ad skipping idea could work. Pay a few cents to skip an advertisement. If you can pay it great, if you can't, you can contribute to the vlogbrothers by turning off adblock and watching the ad.

Ya I meant to say that you could just donate to or earn bitcoins for other things and the adds/sharing would just be alternation way to earn them. Also I agree with what Versh had to say. I think a crowd-sourced funding website like kick starter but for on going projects would be good. (Also some rewards would be cool) and not just videos but also anyone who creates for a virtual medium and shares their work for free.

Seems to me that the Vlogbrothers are doing quite well for themselves.

Nerimon is making enough money to pay off two mortgages and keep pretty comfortable. And the Vlogbrother's combined ventures are far more substantial than Nerimon. Anyone remember the video with John showing off his new Volt?

I think it's a bit rich for Hank to cry poor in the same video as saying that money is becoming too centralised on Youtube. It's the wild success of communities like us that is causing money to be centralised and making it hard for people like this to break through. I mean, when I subscribe to new channels, more often than not it's just more Vlogbrothers ventures like The Brainscoop.

Hank imagines a future where Youtube is like today's cable TV. In that future, Vlogbrothers is a 24hr station.

It did not sound to me at all that Hank was trying to "cry poor" or make a system where him/others on youtube necessarily get even more money. Also, not all of their money even comes from youtube.

I think Hank just wants more of youtube's power in the hands of the people instead of the hands of a bigger business. Fan supported content. It's a model where smaller youtube channels like your friend's there can still receive money even though he doesn't have enough subscribers to receive current youtube benefits. With that little bit of money he can have more possibilities for quality and content and through that probably gain even more subscribers.

At least that is what I got out of it, and it sounds pretty good to me.